MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56,784/- being 8% of the total contract receipts was treated as profit of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee. A sum of ₹8,08,000/- being cash payments for goods and services purchased from Chetmani Ornaments (P) Ltd. was also added as unexplained expenditure as the assessee failed to file a reply and the total

RAHUL KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 13.12.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2.1 In this case, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the course of online verification

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

56 years of age and was\nsuffering from illness for the last several months. Medical Documents are enclosed.\n6. That the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the present appeal is not\nattributable to the petitioner\n7. That the petitioner states that the delay had happened beyond the control of the\npetitioner and the same merits to be condoned

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

PROTECH PACKAGING PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Protech Packaging Pvt Ltd., 3A, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Patna Ground Floor, Pushpanjali Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Patna- 80000 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 1473 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/10147/2017-18 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 607 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Order Of Ld Cit(A) Was Passed On 23.6.2023 & The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed Within 60 Days, However, Due To Serious Illness Of The Accountant Who Was Entrusted To Take Steps In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Facts as emerged from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of aluminium caps. Return of income was filed on 30.09.2015 showing total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, notices

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 43,67,25,641/- made

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay. Since\nboth the appeals have inter-connected issues hence, they are being heard\ntogether for simultaneous adjudication.\n\n2. These appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated\n12.12.2024

BLUECHIP ASSET PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BLUECHIP ADVISORY PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay filling of appeal that one of the director "Shanti Devi (DIN-01935923) was ill from last year. Due to illness of the director, we have not proper reply to CIT(A) also. And they have passed order accordingly as we have not reply on time to CIT(A). 5. That the, The Director (Shanti Devi (DIN-01935923) has passed

SANJEEV KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.264/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjeev Kumar...……………………………. …………………....Appellant Om Enterprises, Main Bazar, Bihta, Bihar- 801503. [Pan: Aswpk7096A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 56 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation

VEENA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. For that the order passed U/s 263 of the IT Act by the Ld PCIT, Patna is wrong, illegal, arbitrary & against the fact & circumstances of the case. I.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi 2 2. For that

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

56,000/- approx. The AO has\nallowed personal expenses to the appellant @2750/- per month i.e.\n33,000/- per annum for A.Y. 2002-03 which appears to be quite\nreasonable and therefore taking a consistent view, the total withdrawal\nshould have been pegged at Rs. 89,000/- (33,000+56,000). The appellant\nhas disclosed withdrawal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATIHAR vs. BIRENDRA KUMAR SANCHETI, KATIHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,45,56,667/- made by A.O by accepting additional

KOSHLESH VARIJ LOCHAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD- 1 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 90/90A of the Act at Rs.2,19,610/- solely on account of delay in filing Form No. 67. 3. At the outset, the assessee submitted that he is working with Tata Tax Consultancy Services Limited (TCS), Mumbai and was sent to Budapest (Hungary) for the Project of TCS. He submitted that on foreign allowance of Rs.14

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

delay of 132 days in filing the\ninstant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for\ncondonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the\naverments made in the applications, we condone the delay.\n3. We also find that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee.\nOn perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were\nscheduled